HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Ot:hockey alberta eliminates body checking in peewee division

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-09-2013, 11:57 PM
  #226
thadd
Oil4Life
 
thadd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: China
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,661
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to thadd
I don't think kids that young should be throwing the body around in the first place. In PE class kids don't play full contact sports at that age.

thadd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 12:29 AM
  #227
April Ethereal
Eternal rains...
 
April Ethereal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,426
vCash: 907
Quote:
Originally Posted by thadd View Post
I don't think kids that young should be throwing the body around in the first place. In PE class kids don't play full contact sports at that age.
You don't play contact at any grade in PE.

Which is unfortunate. Sports like Rugby aren't meant to be dumbed down with flags.

April Ethereal is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 01:08 AM
  #228
Oil Gauge
Registered User
 
Oil Gauge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thadd View Post
I don't think kids that young should be throwing the body around in the first place. In PE class kids don't play full contact sports at that age.
haha yeah because the football line backer should ever be laying the body on the science geek.?.?

In my opinion body checking should start earlier. At a younger age the size differential is less than it is in bantam. The speed and force at which kids would hit each other would be less as well.

Do you think Race car drivers learn to drive in a formula-1 car, or a go cart?

Oil Gauge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 01:11 AM
  #229
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybaroo View Post
Way, way, way more dangerous.
I guarantee you that if one looked at the number of hours kids mountain bike/bmx to hockey games, the injury rates, including concussions, wouldnt be anywhere close. The bikers would be far, far higher.
Starting the personal attacks are we? Nice. Very mature. Every time you post you keep losing any and all credibility.

I don't take my 7yr old downhill mountain biking. If you've ever mountain biked at Canmore Nordic center there are a tons of beginner trails that are wide and not very steep. Its a great cross-country beginner course. Plenty of room for kids to cut their teeth and learn to ride. I'm not taking my 7yr old down Moose Mountain or other downhill runs in Kananaskis where he can get seriously hurt. He can do that when he's 14 or 15.


Last edited by Bryanbryoil: 05-10-2013 at 02:00 PM. Reason: Edited quoted post
Bobblehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 01:47 AM
  #230
alanschu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewOilRising View Post
It also shows that introducing contact later has no reduction in injuries.
Wrong.

It shows that introducing contact later postpones when the injuries occur. Instead of having their 3rd or 4th injury in Bantam (since the rates don't change), they are having their 1st.

alanschu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 01:50 AM
  #231
April Ethereal
Eternal rains...
 
April Ethereal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,426
vCash: 907
Quote:
Originally Posted by alanschu View Post
Wrong.

It shows that introducing contact later postpones when the injuries occur. Instead of having their 3rd or 4th injury in Bantam (since the rates don't change), they are having their 1st.
So why not just eliminate all contact then?

What makes a 12 year old so special that he shouldn't be injured, but it's perfectly ok for a 15 year old to be?

Man, I'm glad I played Rugby.

April Ethereal is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 02:39 AM
  #232
alanschu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewOilRising View Post
So why not just eliminate all contact then?

What makes a 12 year old so special that he shouldn't be injured, but it's perfectly ok for a 15 year old to be?
Maybe you're right. I'm sure the association examines it. Though I must point out that your response is not irrelevant to the original assertion you made that I responded to (logical fallacy: moving the goal posts). The fact that Quebec has removed hitting in Peewee, yet has no difference in injury rates in Bantam, completely and utterly undermines any argument that refusing to allow peewee kids to hit will make them more prone to injury in the future. As a result, you now must rely on misdirection and obfuscating what the discussion is about. Though I certainly won't undermine your assessment that perhaps hitting should be removed from all leagues, as that's your judgment to make.

Back to the discussion, there are also cognitive development angles to consider. Teenagers have significantly improved cognitive abilities to improve a lot of their decision making. Here's a brief introduction that illustrates that adolescents are typically better at abstract thinking and understanding the possible consequences for their actions (to themselves and to others). That is, they also become more capable of understanding and making a better informed decision as to whether or not they feel comfortable playing in a league with hitting. Unfortunately a parent doesn't actually receive and interpret the sensory input that the child actually receives. At best, the parent could start assessing their child's proprioception and the like, but unless properly controlled, most parents won't have a clue how to do this.

The Learn to train stage for boys is typically considered 9-12, because until then no matter how much they play growing up, there are physical deficiencies in motor control that still need to be developed through maturation. By having 10 and 11 year old kids (or younger!) take part in hitting, you are putting them in a position to learn how to deal with potentially serious collisions at a time when they are fundamentally less capable of learning those skills. (which is most likely why there's no observable difference between Quebec and Alberta's Bantam injury rates). Doubly so when hockey skating is a skill that specifically requires a high degree of physical control and coordination compared to almost any other sport out there.

For the vast, vast majority of players, they should still be looking on improving their technical skills (skating, balance, stickhandling, etc.) because while a solid foundation exists from playing younger, their bodies are just now at a level of maturation to truly allow mastering of those skills.

alanschu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 05:45 AM
  #233
Tedi
Registered User
 
Tedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,264
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewOilRising View Post
So why not just eliminate all contact then?

What makes a 12 year old so special that he shouldn't be injured, but it's perfectly ok for a 15 year old to be?
Man, I'm glad I played Rugby.
...do you really need an answer for this? Most mens league hockey doesn't have hitting, ever ask yourself why that is?

Tedi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 10:31 AM
  #234
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedi View Post
Do you really believe that participation would drop off because there is no bodychecking? If anything I think this new ruling will increase enrollment into peewee hockey.
Maybe I stated it unclear, I am saying eliminating hitting will increase participation. I am also saying that if HA thought it would reduce enrollment they wouldn't make this decision.

Slats432 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 10:47 AM
  #235
Mentallydull
Registered User
 
Mentallydull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Oil Country
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead View Post
Yeah, shame on us for doing what's in the best interest of the majority.
I was rather interested in this debate until I saw the above quote.

Making changes that affect everybody for "the greater good" is a really slippery slope that can impinge on human freedoms. I'm not saying this is the first step in becoming some crazy world where all our actions are dictated or anything like that, but by simply accepting things like this, you're limiting your decisions on how to raise your kid.

I'd say that the most important thing that can be done is to educate parents as much as possible on the pros/cons of hitting hockey and allow them to make an INFORMED decision.

If, at that point, they don't want their kids playing in a contact league, they can sign them up for a non-contact league.

TL;DR - Educate the parents then allow them to make the decision

Mentallydull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 11:07 AM
  #236
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alanschu View Post
The fact that Quebec has removed hitting in Peewee, yet has no difference in injury rates in Bantam, completely and utterly undermines any argument that refusing to allow peewee kids to hit will make them more prone to injury in the future.
You're making a lot of points logically, but you cannot say this. One narrow and small study with a number of acknowledged limitations and a specific methodology does not result in an irrefutable conclusion.

Added material to be discussed and analyzed in context, yes of course.

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 11:20 AM
  #237
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentallydull View Post
I was rather interested in this debate until I saw the above quote.

Making changes that affect everybody for "the greater good" is a really slippery slope that can impinge on human freedoms. I'm not saying this is the first step in becoming some crazy world where all our actions are dictated or anything like that, but by simply accepting things like this, you're limiting your decisions on how to raise your kid.

I'd say that the most important thing that can be done is to educate parents as much as possible on the pros/cons of hitting hockey and allow them to make an INFORMED decision.

If, at that point, they don't want their kids playing in a contact league, they can sign them up for a non-contact league.

TL;DR - Educate the parents then allow them to make the decision
But that decision is a lot tougher when the kid is 4 years old and will be playing 8 years of competitive hockey before the decision has to be made. A little more complicated to make that choice.

Also, the non contact league is also non competitive. I like competition, but I don't like the 500 concussions Alberta kids get every year playing Peewee.

The other issue is that all of our culture, money, volunteer efforts are based on supporting "Minor hockey". The same options aren't available for people who agree with this decision. (Although it doesn't have a huge affect on me or my son either way.)

Slats432 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 11:23 AM
  #238
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 View Post
You're making a lot of points logically, but you cannot say this. One narrow and small study with a number of acknowledged limitations and a specific methodology does not result in an irrefutable conclusion.

Added material to be discussed and analyzed in context, yes of course.
I will definitely concede this point. We don't as a group have enough long term study data to ensure that we won't see a big jump in Bantam concussions based on this decision. Whether this study is accurate or has enough sample size remains to be seen.

I hope it not the case and this decision allows for kids to grow and develop their skills up to the age of 13, then be well prepared for bodychecking at that time.

Slats432 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 11:24 AM
  #239
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentallydull View Post
I was rather interested in this debate until I saw the above quote.

Making changes that affect everybody for "the greater good" is a really slippery slope that can impinge on human freedoms. I'm not saying this is the first step in becoming some crazy world where all our actions are dictated or anything like that, but by simply accepting things like this, you're limiting your decisions on how to raise your kid.

I'd say that the most important thing that can be done is to educate parents as much as possible on the pros/cons of hitting hockey and allow them to make an INFORMED decision.

If, at that point, they don't want their kids playing in a contact league, they can sign them up for a non-contact league.

TL;DR - Educate the parents then allow them to make the decision

We don't educate parents and allow them to make decsisions on seat belts, car seats, driver's licences, drinking age, broadcast standards, fluoride in our drinking water, child labor laws, public health care and other areas. There needs to be a certain level of government oversight and involvement. In these cases and others, goverments have opted to take the decision out of parents' hands for the greater good. That's just the way it is. You don't like it, exercise your freedom to vote someone else into office that will change it or exercise that right to move to a place that will allow you those choices.

You're taking the discussion in a philosophical direction where we'll end up debating how much the government should/shouldn't intervene (and maybe my comment started that?). There's no way to win the personal freedom argument either way. Your standards are different than mine. I don't have a problem with intervention in many cases. I think its needed to regulate stupid people. You seem to think there's too much and the people meekly following government's action are the stupid people. Neither one will win this argument. So let's ignore it and move on.

Government regulations affect on personal freedoms. They do it all the time. Its not going to change anytime soon.

I am accepting and applauding their decision. I believe that not every adult has their childs' best interest at heart - most of the time they're not even aware they're doing it. I've found myself guilty of it too at times. Its impossible not to. And its not restricted to hockey.

I've read the reports. I've been watching documentaries on concussions. I've been reading articles. I've been listening to what Keith Primeau has to say about his experience. I think they made the right decision, protect as many kids dangerous brain injury for as long as you can. Is it a perfect solution, no. But it works for me.

Bobblehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 11:29 AM
  #240
Mentallydull
Registered User
 
Mentallydull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Oil Country
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slats432 View Post
But that decision is a lot tougher when the kid is 4 years old and will be playing 8 years of competitive hockey before the decision has to be made. A little more complicated to make that choice.

Also, the non contact league is also non competitive. I like competition, but I don't like the 500 concussions Alberta kids get every year playing Peewee.

The other issue is that all of our culture, money, volunteer efforts are based on supporting "Minor hockey". The same options aren't available for people who agree with this decision. (Although it doesn't have a huge affect on me or my son either way.)
The big issue in this whole discussion, though, seems to be that we're looking for an easy decision when there isn't one. Making a blanket decision for everyone can't be an easy decision and, in my opinion, it's not a decision they should be making.

The parents have every right to decide what they want their children to do in this regard (provided they're educated). You're right though, it won't be an easy decision but you signed yourself up for difficult decisions when you had a child

As for the competition level, that's a league that can be (and likely WOULD be) created in itself if it ever became a big enough issue.

Mentallydull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 11:35 AM
  #241
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slats432 View Post
I will definitely concede this point. We don't as a group have enough long term study data to ensure that we won't see a big jump in Bantam concussions based on this decision. Whether this study is accurate or has enough sample size remains to be seen.

I hope it not the case and this decision allows for kids to grow and develop their skills up to the age of 13, then be well prepared for bodychecking at that time.
I appreciate the reply and expected nothing less from you Slats.

I was reading yesterday that one of the sports medicine groups (I can't find the website for some reason today) that has position papers on a variety of sports (an honesty that I appreciate very much) and actually advocates hitting starting in Midget and only elite players (which would have the very weird possible consequence of some players going from non-hitting to the WHL...yikes). They also want soccer helmets considered (which seems incredibly dangerous actually).

I get where they're coming from and going. Don't agree with them but they do lay it out there at least.

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 11:36 AM
  #242
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,646
vCash: 500
One thing people are missing here is that Hockey Alberta is not "the government".

You could very well start up a competing minor hockey association if you were so inclined. Difficult? Yes. Impossible? Nope.

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 11:38 AM
  #243
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by harpoon View Post
Bikes are really dangerous you know ....
Bet more kids injured every year "mountain biking" than playing hockey.
Bike safety, or bike danger, is at the hands of the user for the most part.

You don't always get people who's intent it is to belt you as you are riding.

Replacement is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 11:41 AM
  #244
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentallydull View Post
The parents have every right to decide what they want their children to do in this regard (provided they're educated).
WOW!! So only people who've been "educated" on the choice have a RIGHT to make the decision. Talk about hypocrite. Now you're infringing on peoples' rights to be ignorant. You're forcing them to take a class or seminar. What about those who can't read or speak the language? How do they get educated on the issue in order to make an educated decision?

Bobblehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 11:41 AM
  #245
Mentallydull
Registered User
 
Mentallydull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Oil Country
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead View Post
We don't educate parents and allow them to make decsisions on seat belts, car seats, driver's licences, drinking age, broadcast standards, fluoride in our drinking water, child labor laws, public health care and other areas. There needs to be a certain level of government oversight and involvement. In these cases and others, goverments have opted to take the decision out of parents' hands for the greater good. That's just the way it is. You don't like it, exercise your freedom to vote someone else into office that will change it or exercise that right to move to a place that will allow you those choices.
What? Of course they've been educated - even I was educated as a child in regards to all of those (exception being fluoride/broadcast standards (???)).

The government has taken the choice out of the parent's hands, I'm not debating that.

Just because you don't like what I have to say doesn't mean it's invalid, it means I have a differing opinion. This is a debate, the last time I checked, I'm not running for office or starting a political campaign, so you can save the whole "take it or leave it" spiel, thanks.

Quote:
You're taking the discussion in a philosophical direction where we'll end up debating how much the government should/shouldn't intervene (and maybe my comment started that?). There's no way to win the personal freedom argument either way. Your standards are different than mine. I don't have a problem with intervention in many cases. I think its needed to regulate stupid people. You seem to think there's too much and the people meekly following government's action are the stupid people. Neither one will win this argument. So let's ignore it and move on.
I can agree that there's no way to win the personal freedom argument due to differing standards.

You think it's needed to regulate stupid people, I think it's used as a cheap excuse by weak-willed people to not have to make any difficult decisions. Differing opinions yet again but yes, lets move on.

Quote:
Government regulations affect on personal freedoms. They do it all the time. Its not going to change anytime soon.
It's true that regulations can affect personal freedoms but are you forced to agree with them?

Quote:
I am accepting and applauding their decision. I believe that not every adult has their childs' best interest at heart - most of the time they're not even aware they're doing it. I've found myself guilty of it too at times. Its impossible not to. And its not restricted to hockey.

I've read the reports. I've been watching documentaries on concussions. I've been reading articles. I've been listening to what Keith Primeau has to say about his experience. I think they made the right decision, protect as many kids dangerous brain injury for as long as you can. Is it a perfect solution, no. But it works for me.
I'm fine with you stating your opinion and I can see legitimate arguments from both sides - the main issue I had was the whole "greater good" stuff.

Mentallydull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 11:42 AM
  #246
Mentallydull
Registered User
 
Mentallydull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Oil Country
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Bike safety, or bike danger, is at the hands of the user for the most part.

You don't always get people who's intent it is to belt you as you are riding.
I can agree with this to an extent but you have to be aware of the dangers regardless of if it's hockey (other players out to get you) or biking (the sheer number of idiotic drivers out there).

Mentallydull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 11:43 AM
  #247
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Bike safety, or bike danger, is at the hands of the user for the most part.

You don't always get people who's intent it is to belt you as you are riding.
Hockey on bikes?!?!?!

PATENT PENDING!!!!!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/matthewsim/6914391621/

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 11:44 AM
  #248
Mentallydull
Registered User
 
Mentallydull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Oil Country
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead View Post
WOW!! So only people who've been "educated" on the choice have a RIGHT to make the decision. Talk about hypocrite. Now you're infringing on peoples' rights to be ignorant. You're forcing them to take a class or seminar. What about those who can't read or speak the language? How do they get educated on the issue in order to make an educated decision?
Ummmm...

Maybe I'm just tired but is this sarcasm? I'm not really sure how to respond...

Mentallydull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 11:55 AM
  #249
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentallydull View Post
I can agree with this to an extent but you have to be aware of the dangers regardless of if it's hockey (other players out to get you) or biking (the sheer number of idiotic drivers out there).
One has to consider general coordination at different relative ages.

Ever ride a unicycle? Or a long tandem bike with people that don't know how to ride a tandem bike and that the actions and movements of one effects all?

Now try to consider partaking of these activities in a contact sport.

What I'm getting at here is that hockey in general requires a degree of coordination simply not found in most other sports. A degree of coordination not always found at a young age.

As mentioned this is not hitting in football, or Lacrosse, which anybody could do with a modicum of coordination and timing. Its hitting, receiving hits in an already dangerous game that occurs on ice, propelled by lethal skates moving players at high speeds in any direction an an environment where only solid, unforgivable boards contain the mayhem. The mechanisms of injury contained within are manifest.

Simply put few kids playing hockey have the adequate coordination to take and receive hits safely at this level and its unwise to assume they do.

Nor do kids have the informed consent to make decisions that could very well impact the rest of their lives in one nanosecond of avoidable tragedy.

For young kids, hockey is dangerous enough. Doing anything to make it a safer activity for all concerned is something I applaud.


Last edited by Replacement: 05-10-2013 at 12:17 PM.
Replacement is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 12:10 PM
  #250
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentallydull View Post
Ummmm...

Maybe I'm just tired but is this sarcasm? I'm not really sure how to respond...
For sure its sarcasm. First you argue that any decision by a governing body (people are taking offense to calling it a government.....they're a governing body) is an infringement on your (and others') personal freedom to decide for themselves. Then you say these same individuals can only make the decision IF they're educated on the matter. Which is it? total freedom to choose (first post) or only freedom to choose under certain conditions that you deem necessary (second post).

You're imposing your standards and political agenda on others. Exactly the thing you criticized in the first post.

Bobblehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:20 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.